Right to Religious Expression Depends on Color
By: Erik Rush
As if the Reverend Wright issue and double standard of Democrat presidential just-about nominee Senator Barack Obamaâ€™s seeming imperviousness as far as the press and likely voters go werenâ€™t odious enough, the candidate is now employing campaign materials focusing on his alleged Christian faith.
Fliers on the topic of Obamaâ€™s alleged conversion experience began appearing in Kentucky shortly prior to the May 20 primary.
â€œI wonâ€™t be fulfilling Godâ€™s will unless I go out and do the Lordâ€™s work.â€
- Obama campaign flier
It is likely that the question for many Americans here is to what deity the candidate is referring. Is it the God of Abraham, as worshipped by Jews and Christians? Is it Jesus Christ? Is it the god that â€“ as Rev. Wright suggested â€“ ought damn America for its imperialism, amoral foreign and domestic covert operations, drugging and infection of American blacks, and black (or would it be white) helicopters? Is it Allah, perhaps?
Evidently, his own faith having come into serious question is of no moment to the â€œAudacityâ€ man himself.
This columnist has stated that if Barack Obama is elected president, it will be the greatest propaganda coup in the history of American politics. Not only is the candidate an empty suit, he may very well be the antithesis of everything American, albeit a very articulate and refined representation thereof. An Obama victory would be analogous to Rob Reiner being elected president of the National Rifle Association.
Obamaâ€™s ability and inclination to release this paternalistic swill of course demonstrates another profound double standard. Would there ever have been a George W. Bush presidency had he spoken of â€œfulfilling Godâ€™s willâ€ or going out and doing â€œthe Lordâ€™s work?â€ Of course not. Is Obamaâ€™s ability to do so with impunity because heâ€™s black, because he a far Left guy or because his faith did come into question? There are, after all still Americans who wonder if his sympathies lie with Islam. His being a member of a twisted and radical church that is chummy with the Nation of Islam hasnâ€™t done much to ameliorate that question in their minds.
Well, letâ€™s examine this. Say John Edwards was the front-runner right now. Assuming he perceived a need to do so, would he circulate similar materials? Probably not. Would it be because heâ€™s white, or because his faith hasnâ€™t raised the controversy Obamaâ€™s has raised? As there are sufficient theoretical aspects involved, itâ€™s a bit difficult to determine.
Perhaps an analysis of far Left whitesâ€™ perception of religious blacks might helpâ€¦
The power brokers on the far Left are white. Presidents are not despots (contrary to what is said of our current president); those who are giving us Barack Obama at least perceive that they hold invisible strings of some sort. Politicians on the left who claim faith (statistically a lower percentage than those on the right) generally keep their religion close to their vest; they must appease those of faith in the electorate, but the issue must be â€œpersonal.â€ Those on the right who claim faith are, as we have seen, highly suspect.
Blacks who claim faith however, are portrayed with such a subtle condescension that itâ€™s barely perceptible. They â€“ like the gun-toting white genetic misfits in Appalachia â€“ are expected to rely on those comforting, quaint, even primitive traditions that the simple-minded so need to cultivate the barest understanding of their environment. I just love it when they do those handsprings down the aisle, donâ€™t you? Black churches are so exciting!
So the media isnâ€™t going to jump on Obama for making gratuitous overtures of religious solidarity with rural bumpkins, even when his own church has come under scrutiny. He is automatically regarded as sincere, which is the modality in which the establishment press is currently operating anyway.
While victims of the mass hypnosis that seems to have already all but propelled Obama into the White House are oblivious to the implications of this â€œholyâ€ mission, other Christian Americans may be puzzled at the contrast between this being a non-issue compared to the direct questioning to which George W. Bush was subjected apropos his faith. How much did Bushâ€™s faith impact his life in a practical sense? Was he claiming to be Divinely guided when it came to executive decisions? Might he call a press conference one night and appear before America dressed in a robe, a snake in each hand, and declare that God had ordained the destruction of, say, Damascus and Pyongyang by holy (nuclear) fire?
Bush was asked these questions, and he answered them intelligently and without indignation, which is far more than I could have done. Those who have bastardized the First Amendment have convinced a significant number of Americans that an office holderâ€™s faith ought not impact their life in any practical sense. Of course, anyone of real faith â€“ no matter what it happens to be â€“ will have such integrated into their life to an extent that there is no separation between the person and the professional.
Think about that the next time you consider why certain faiths are under relentless attack by the far Left and the press, and what the implications of Senator Obamaâ€™s beliefs might really be.